10KW LENR demonstrator (new thread)

Maui · Post by **Maui** » Fri Oct 07, 2011 11:49 pm

I didn't catch that part. Nice!

sparkyy0007 · Post by **sparkyy0007** » Sat Oct 08, 2011 12:12 am

nferguso wrote:Interesting test. Here are issues that the NyTeknik report and video raises in my mind.

Do you have a link to the video ?

Giorgio · Post by **Giorgio** » Sat Oct 08, 2011 12:35 am

If previous tests was done in an unprofessional way this one is even worst.
And the point is that if he only asked for some help on his forum he could find dozen of qualified people that will be ready to help him out for free (including me) just to put a final word on all of this.

One has to wonder as why he keeps refusing professional free help choosing instead this ridiculous set up.

nferguso · Post by **nferguso** » Sat Oct 08, 2011 2:09 am

Do you have a link to the video ?

See Kahuna message, Oct. 7, 11:49 AM, a couple of pages back.

sparkyy0007 · Post by **sparkyy0007** » Sat Oct 08, 2011 2:30 am

nferguso

Don't grow old, blindness sucks, thanks.

sparkyy0007 · Post by **sparkyy0007** » Sat Oct 08, 2011 2:53 am

I see from the video the heated outlet water temperature was not measured.
Nothing, as far as excess heat can be derived from this demonstration.
This was a complete waste of time for everyone involved.

parallel · Post by **parallel** » Sat Oct 08, 2011 3:33 am

It is a real pity that some people either can't read or can't understand what is written.

For some things left out by our friendly skeptics see Jed Rothwell's post here.
http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@es ... 52395.html
It seems near certain that heat was generated in the period after the main power was turned off.

sparkyy0007 · Post by **sparkyy0007** » Sat Oct 08, 2011 3:51 am

parallel wrote:It is a real pity that some people either can't read or can't understand what is written.

For some things left out by our friendly skeptics see Jed Rothwell's post here.
http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@es ... 52395.html
It seems near certain that heat was generated in the period after the main power was turned off.

The output temperature of the water was not measured, the data and calculations are irrelevent.

stefanbanev · Post by **stefanbanev** » Sat Oct 08, 2011 4:35 am

parallel wrote:It is a real pity that some people either can't read or can't understand what is written.

For some things left out by our friendly skeptics see Jed Rothwell's post here.
http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@es ... 52395.html
It seems near certain that heat was generated in the period after the main power was turned off.

Thanks for link. The graph is quite illustrative, it appears work better then the first impression I've got, still this test indicates clearly that the process inside e-cat is not well controlled plus very sloppy arrangement of all event plus "biased" first report ignoring the heating phase all this does not help to gain wider support among reasonable skeptics.

Giorgio · Post by **Giorgio** » Sat Oct 08, 2011 4:39 am

parallel wrote:It is a real pity that some people either can't read or can't understand what is written.

For some things left out by our friendly skeptics see Jed Rothwell's post here.
http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@es ... 52395.html
It seems near certain that heat was generated in the period after the main power was turned off.

Jet Rothwell's has a degree in Japaneese, not in thermal engineering.

A good heat exchange can allow the dT between the secondary fluid entering the exchanger and the primary fluid going to the drain to be even of just a couple of degrees. If this is the case than the lost heat represents an amount too small to cover all the other potential errors.

sparkyy0007 · Post by **sparkyy0007** » Sat Oct 08, 2011 5:51 am

Here is a very significant problem.

The first image shows the hot side manifold of the heat exchange.
The thermocouple according to Rossi was in contact with the output water fitting (somewhere above the hose barbe on the bottom of the picture).
The hot pri input and the hot secondary output manifold is machined from a single piece of brass.
The temperature of the manifold will be determined not only by by the secondary water flow but from conduction from the hot primary flow as well.
A thermocouple placed anywhere on the manifold will not give an indication of the primary or secondary water/steam temperatures, but a combination of both.
The water temperature should have been measured in the flow.
Therefore, no valid output temperature data exists and calculations based on it are questionable.

Gandalf · Post by **Gandalf** » Sat Oct 08, 2011 9:29 am

sparkyy0007 wrote:Here is a very significant problem...

I have gone from very hopeful skeptic to pessimistic doubter.

I must conclude that Rossi is completely incompetent. I've tutored undergraduate heat and mass transfer labs that were better conducted than Rossi has performed.

Perhaps he really has discovered something interesting, but we'll never know from what he presents.

I've had quite enough "hope and change" from the ever-growing number of questionable characters in the media today. I'm going back to the remote areas of the word to smoke my pipe, drink some ale, and let the corruption of the Orks take it's course.

I'll still post, and lurk, as I am wont to do, but unless I can obtain an ecat and test it for myself, I shall discount anything I see orchestrated from Rossi as complete shit. I hope someone with access to Rossi's hardware is able to obtain a sample and give it a proper evaluation. Until then, I've had quite enough.

~Gandalf

parallel · Post by **parallel** » Sat Oct 08, 2011 4:32 pm

sparkyy0007
Your drawing looks wrong in many ways. In particular the wall thickness and general proportions.
I'm mildly curious why people insist on making things up to try and prove their preconceived points of view. What do they get out of it?

Rick Meisinger · Post by **Rick Meisinger** » Sat Oct 08, 2011 4:48 pm

sparkyy0007 wrote:Here is a very significant problem.
The first image shows the hot side manifold of the heat exchange.
The thermocouple according to Rossi was in contact with the output water fitting (somewhere above the hose barbe on the bottom of the picture).
The hot pri input and the hot secondary output manifold is machined from a single piece of brass.
The temperature of the manifold will be determined not only by by the secondary water flow but from conduction from the hot primary flow as well.
A thermocouple placed anywhere on the manifold will not give an indication of the primary or secondary water/steam temperatures, but a combination of both.
The water temperature should have been measured in the flow.
Therefore, no valid output temperature data exists and calculations based on it are questionable.

I agree that this is an issue. This is the first issue that I have noticed that would have a negative effect on the power produced.

Other issues like not accounting for the heat in the near boiling water remaining in the e-cat at the end of the test, not measuring the temperature of the primary outlet from the heat exchanger so that the efficiency of the heat exchanger could be calculated or measuring the heat loss from the surface of the e-cat; all would add to the power if considered.

I would suspect that high volume of flow from the secondary circuit, only the thickness of the pipe from the thermocouples and over an inch away from the primary the T2 would not have been significantly impacted by the primary because a substantial amount of this conduction would be absorbed by the secondary circuit's water flow. But you are correct in that the conduction from the primary would have some negative influence and it is frustrating that the temperature of the flow itself was not measured.

I think it is likely that the other losses that were not measured, especially the efficiency of the heat exchanger which would have degraded during the test due to mineral build up, would have offset any negative impacts that this conduction would have caused. It will be interesting to get the feedback from the scientists that were present at the test and to learn what they have to say about this in the upcoming days.

AR has said that he believes that most people will only be convinced that cold fusion works after many customers have used an actual product and are satisfied. This must be why he does not put a lot of effort into these demonstrations. This test gives just enough information to show true skeptics that there is something here that is working but makes no effort to show the full performance of the device. Since it is his goal to sell his 1MW plant to customers, I hope his testing of the 1MW plant is even more conclusive and results in both sales and satisfied customers.

As an edit to my post here is a recent quote from AR that he posted on his blog:

Andrea Rossi
October 8th, 2011 at 12:20 PM
Dear Carlo Ombello:
At this point the word is exclusively to the market. The Customers will tell you if the E-Cat works properly or not.
The set up war perfect, the position of the thermocouples proper, the energy produced before the self sustained operation was already more than the energy consumed, even if of course for the first 2 hours we just heat up, if you read carefully the data you will discover that as soon as the temp of the primary is arrived up to 100 Celsius the production of energy was more than the consumed energy, there has been a period during which the resistance has been turned on for 10 minutes and turned off for 10-15 minutes, durind this period we already got more energy than we consumed, until we arrived to the stabilization, and at that point we produced more than 3.4 kWh/h consuming nothing. Who wants to understand, can easily understand, who wants not to understand will not steal a single second of my time. By the way: we did not consider, to be more conservative, all the energy lost through the insulation: in total a surface of 5000 square cm heated up to 60-80 Celsius… As a matter of fact, the energy produced by the E-Cat has been more than the one measured, and we wanted this, to be very conservative. About the delta T: we have taken for the calculation the minimum delta obtained during the self sustained period, to be connservative. The position of the thermocouple is correct. You can proof this: buy the same connection we used (costs 10 dollars in any shop of hydraulics and plumbing) insert water at whatever temperature you want, put a thermometer in the same position we used, take the temperature; then, put the same thermometer a couple of inches more distant, you will see no difference, provided the pipe is insulated.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

stefanbanev · Post by **stefanbanev** » Sat Oct 08, 2011 5:03 pm

parallel wrote:sparkyy0007
Your drawing looks wrong in many ways. In particular the wall thickness and general proportions.
I'm mildly curious why people insist on making things up to try and prove their preconceived points of view. What do they get out of it?

Mostly to cope with own mediocrity...